Transcription
I recently came across a meeting that I discussed with the shara about the game of Monopoly. It tries to adapt Bernie's policy into the game of Monopoly in an attempt to smear Bernie. After some discussion, I realized something: people actually don't understand the point of Monopoly. They don't understand how it isn't necessarily pro-unregulated capitalism and that it teaches the importance of taxation.
I'm going to set up a scenario that shows how this game can directly equate to our current economy and how equality of opportunity, or the belief we all have the same starting point, is ridiculous. I will also demonstrate how merit isn't really a factor in much of wealth creation.
I must begin where it all started, though, with a game called The Landlord's Game. In 1904, a woman named Elizabeth Magie created a board game called The Landlord's Game. It was designed with the intent to educate its players on a concept called Georgism, or Geo-ism. It is an economic philosophy holding that while people should own the value they produce themselves, economic value derived from land, including natural resources and natural opportunities, should belong equally to all members of society. This is taken directly from Wikipedia, developed from the writings of the economist and social reformer Henry George.
The Georgist paradigm seeks solutions to social and ecological problems based on the principles of land rights and public finance, which attempt to integrate economic efficiency with social justice. Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by natural monopolies, pollution, and the control of the commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges. Intellectual property, any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply, can generate economic rent, but the classic, most significant example of land monopoly involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair, and equitable.
The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. Georgists argued that revenues from a land value tax can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes, for example, on income, trade, or purchases that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue back to the people by means of a basic income or citizens' dividend. Georgism was one of the first economic theories that advocated for taxation of land versus income. It was derived from thinkers such as John Locke, Spinoza, and Thomas Paine. Adam Smith even concluded that a land tax would not cause economic inefficiency. Even Milton Friedman called it the LAT, the least bad tax, and that it would lead to improved economic welfare.
Now back to The Landlord's Game. Elizabeth wanted to show people how rent enriched property owners and impoverished renters. She believed this concept was hard to demonstrate and created a game that could easily do this. She thought the game would provoke children's natural suspicion to unfairness and that they would carry this to adulthood.
Under the Prosperity set of rules, every player gained each time someone acquired a new property, designed to reflect George's policy of taxing the value of land, and the game was won by all when the player who started out with the least money had doubled it. Under the Monopolist set of rules, in contrast, players got ahead by acquiring properties and collecting rent from all those who were unfortunate enough to land there, and whoever managed to bankrupt the rest emerged as the sole winner. Sound a little familiar?
The purpose of the dual sets of rules, said Magie, was for players to experience a practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all of its usual outcomes and consequences, and hence to understand how different approaches to property ownership can lead to vastly different social outcomes. "It might have, it might well have been called the game of life," remarked Magie, "as it contains all the elements of success and failure in the real world. In the object is the same as the human race in general seems to have: the accumulation of wealth." Her game is the basis of Monopoly and was meant to teach people about the evils of certain aspects of capitalism. The ideas of the game were eventually stolen by an individual named Charles Darrow and then bought by Parker Brothers and marketed as what we now know as Monopoly.
So, let's break down how Monopoly is played and its rules. Monopoly is a game based upon the idea that the person who gains the most wealth through buying and renting property and ultimately forces the other players into bankruptcy wins the game. Let's go over the equipment. We'll start with the cards: a deck of a deck of 32 Chance and Community Chest cards, 16 Chance and 16 Community Chest, which players draw when they land on the corresponding squares of the track and follow the instructions printed on them.
The Chance cards are just that: chance. They may either be good or bad, depending on your situation. Some of them have you collecting money, while others have you paying money. Some send you to properties that may or may not already be owned, thus forcing you to pay rent, and some either send you straight to jail. The Community Chest cards refer to fundraising organizations that collected money from local businesses and workers and distributed it to community projects. They have since been renamed United Way.
A title deed for each property is given to a player to signify ownership and specifies purchase price, mortgage value, the cost of building houses and hotels on that property, and the various rent prices depending on how developed the property is. A pair of six-sided dice is included. This is important because this significantly cuts randomization down by constraining the most one can move to 12. It also increases the effect of chance since you cannot predict the predictable roll.
Houses and hotels are used to show up, are used to show a property that has been developed and thus can charge more for rent. Money, ranging from one dollar denominations to five hundred dollar denominations, and lastly, tokens which represent players as they move around the board. The rules are relatively simple. Players take turns in order, with the initial player determined by chance before the game.
A typical turn begins with the rolling of the dice and advancing a piece clockwise around the board the corresponding number of squares. If a player rolls doubles, he rolls again after completing his turn. A player who rolls three consecutive sets of doubles on one turn has been caught speeding and is immediately sent to jail instead of moving the amount shown on the dice for the third roll.
Each time a player passes Go, they receive $200. I don't know why this is because no one defines what your job is and why the bank gives you $200 salary for nothing. If anything, it seems like a universal income in practice, or maybe it's a society based upon egalitarian concepts in which everyone gets paid the same amount. Who knows? But its purpose is to make sure you have money to either: a) pay the rent for the property you land on that is owned by another, or b) save up to buy your own property.
If you land on an unknown property, or improve the properties you already own. If a player lands on a property owned by another, they must pay the rent to the owner based upon the amount shown on the card, which is determined by the base rent. The rent is doubled if all colors are owned and the property is not developed, or the developed property coinciding with the rent chart. If the property is unknown, one may buy it, or it goes to auction, in which the bank sells it to the highest bidder.
In general, the way to win the game is to force everyone into bankruptcy and take all their money and assets. The game is about the creation of wealth and how to create a passive income that forces other people out of the market. It deals with property and the ownership of such. Monopoly is a great game that teaches the basics of how property works within a very limited scope of an actual economy. It demonstrates how relying on the income of passing Go is not how one wins. To win, you must gain valuable assets and rely on chance that people will land on your properties.
Chance is not only controlled by the roll of the dice but also Chance cards. It also shows that chance is just as major of an influence as merit. By merit, I mean understanding how the game is played and using the best strategy used to win. For example, one could acquire all the blue, green, yellow, and red properties. They would then develop those properties into hotels. From the owner's perspective, he has the greatest opportunity to generate wealth and a large portion of the board under his control. So many, it would seem like the game is won, but this doesn't take into consideration chance, is it? It is possible that the owner's opponents could roll a number that would dodge every one of his properties for the rest of the game. On the flip side, the owner would land on the opponent's property every time, and this would slowly eat away at their wealth, eventually making them liquidate their property and forcing them into bankruptcy.
In reality, we do not give chance much thought. We normally associate chance with winning the lottery and not to a job promotion. We would like to think that those things are based upon merit, but how much of that is actually based upon merit versus pure chance? By chance, you were born into the environment you are; you couldn't choose that. By chance, you came across the initial job offering and applied for it. In many of the ways we contribute actual merit, you could almost as easily replace it with the word chance and it have the same outcome. For example, through my hard work and determination, I got my job promotion. Now, let's replace it with the word chance: Through pure chance, I received my job promotion. What really changes when you do that? With whom or what you attribute the success to? Did you still get the job? Of course, but how you got it really matters to some people. They need it to be solely contributed to their own agency in order to gain confidence and meaning. However, I don't think it's as cut and dry to determine how much is chance versus how much is actual agency of the individual. I'm going to leave it at that.
Monopoly shows how in a system, one person could eventually acquire all the assets and force people to live in a condition of slavery, or in a mindset that they would rather stay in jail than move about the board in fear of losing. A system of slavery? Well, if this was actual life, the only way to truly lose is to die. If someone gained all the wealth in the country, you would just work to constantly repay the debt you accumulated from trying to move about, or you would find a way to accept poverty to rationalize the injustices you're currently experiencing. The city and jail for as long as you could to keep from dying or becoming more indebted becomes a strategy. You voluntarily choose to give up your freedom in order to live.
Originally, Monopoly wanted to show how taxation of property was a good idea in relation to the accumulation of wealth. So, if you tax the property, then it would be hard for an individual to acquire an incredible amount of wealth and keep it. Beyond that, the other players would have access to wealth that they would have generally, that would have generally been hoarded. The taxation creates economic opportunity for all individuals. For the property owner, it gives them the ability to continuously have people paying for their property, and for the renters, it frees up wealth to be acquired in order to drive an economy. The game does exist in a vacuum in which wealth or money isn't created. What is there from the starting point is all that there ever will be. I will concede this point. However, if the majority of the wealth being created flows right to the owners of the majority of the wealth, of where the majority of the wealth currently is, does that really change the dynamics of the situation? Not really. In the end, the people with less wealth have access to less opportunity and are excluded from much of the success of the current economy.
Another thing Monopoly gets right is the fact that all players start off at the same starting point. Everyone starts off with the same amount of opportunity, minus a few small factors such as experience playing the game, knowledge of investing and wealth generation, or knowledge of the best strategies for winning. All of the properties are on the table to be bought, and everyone starts off with the same amount of money. This is a form of equality of opportunity that many say they want but never pursue. In our current reality, we do not have equality of opportunity. Inheritances keep a lot of the wealth and property from being put back into the pot for people just entering the economy. There are clear man-made laws that influence a starting point for all individuals. It would be nice if we could all start at the same place like Monopoly portrays, but we don't. And I will show an adaptation of Monopoly that shows how our current situation can be adopted into the rules of Monopoly.
Also, there are clear human factors that we have no control over that influence our starting points in life. Things like missing or defective DNA, various forms of mental disabilities, and our environment. Beyond that, like we'd all like to believe that all people have the same aptitude, this is a false assumption. We are not all created equal, even at birth, with the millions of variations of genetic material being passed on. There are so many factors that can influence our starting points that it would be impossible to control for them all.
In general, Monopoly does a great job at giving all players the same starting point. Throw in the variable of chance, and it becomes a game that anyone with any skill level can win. I'm not saying knowledge doesn't help you at all, but statistically, a robot can roll the dice, buy everything it lands on, and always stay in jail for the maximum amount of time, and can be a person exercising agency at least once. In the realm of it being a game, that's fine. It's when we try to adopt this ideology to the real world where it fails. Why would anyone want to live in a society built around an idea that there is only a slim possibility that you may get ahead? Throw in some rags-to-riches stories that make it seem like it can happen to anyone and harp on how much hard work, never mentioning pure chance, determines your place in life and outcomes. Our current system in America, it's upheld on these stories we tell each other to justify our suffering as our own fault, instead of looking at the system of policies and laws in place that actually contribute to the problem as much as our own agency, if not more. This narrative forms the base of our society, and it drives a large portion of our culture.
Monopoly does teach people basic fundamentals about wealth acquisition. Wealth isn't acquired by passing Go. You only collect a fixed amount that is tied to the amount of time it took for you to earn it. Wealth is acquired by the acquisition of assets that generate income without any work. Those assets themselves also increase in value. In total, the property becomes more valuable if you sold it, but it also creates a reoccurring income that requires very little effort on the property owner. The game teaches nothing about working for a salary or a wage because, in general, those things do not lead to wealth. This type of wealth leads to the freedom that all Americans talk about. This is true freedom: freedom from having to work.
So, this brings me to the meme that originally started me on this journey. In the meme pictured here, it fundamentally misconstrues anything Bernie had advocated for policy-wise or intellectually. If you are the leader, you must give up one piece of property to the one who has the least. When has Bernie ever advocated for taking of private property and given it to anyone else? Bernie works inside of market capitalism, and all of his policies reflect private ownership over the means of production. In his own words, "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their income should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here rather than companies that are shutting in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad." If anything, Bernie is more akin to a New Deal Democrat. Bernie would be more closely aligned to the original idea of Monopoly advocating for property tax. It would better be suited to his ideology if it said, "When the wealthiest passes Go, they still receive $200, but also must pay a certain percentage of tax on the total value of property they own." This money wouldn't be given to the least wealthy, but would help them in acquiring property or developing their own through a non-interest bank loan.
The next point is, instead of collecting $200, you pay a 35% income tax to be split among players. As I said above, you should still collect the $200 from the bank but pay a property tax instead. This is much more effective than an income tax, which hurts even the lowest of the income earners. If anything, Bernie would advocate for a progressive income tax similar to what we have now, but with less loopholes. Everyone would pay their fair share, and that tax money would be invested in public goods that benefit all.
The next point is that no one would be buying property, houses, nor hotels. Even under the normal rules of Monopoly, you come to this point because one player sums up all the wealth and forces the other players into bankruptcy. At least in this Bernie-opoly form, property is being transferred, which gives other players access to wealth. And in conclusion, everyone would quit trying and wait for someone to pass Go to get their handout. So, this implies that all the least wealthy players will just be content with just receiving the handouts and not trying to improve their luck. Isn't that a motivation problem? Wouldn't that be more indicative of the system that one can accumulate that much wealth and eventually starve out other players? The majority of players would end up losing before the wealthier player passes Go by moving on to their spaces. The funny thing here is that if this was real life, those players who would die, death would be the only escape from that situation. If someone owned all the wealth-generating properties and there was no way to pay your debts when you landed on their property, what else is there to do? What kind of system is that?
I know it took me a lot to simply explain how ridiculous this meme was, but I wanted to make sure that I covered everything. I wanted to make sure that I covered as much as I could about the game and its history before I commented on how ridiculously simplified and ignorant the meme is. People are not waiting on their handouts due to being lazy; they're waiting on them because they have no opportunities to improve their lot. They have no real way to acquire property if all the property has already been owned. Sure, in a game, you just lose, but in life, you die.
So, what would the correct version of Monopoly look like that reflected our actual economy? Well, there's this modified version of the rules called Intergroup Monopoly. It was developed by St. Louis University professor named Richard Harvey. His intention was to: one, illustrate the structural dynamics and consequences of intergroup inequalities; two, teach students about the interdependencies between income and housing; and three, help students appreciate the need for interventions that actively address the enduring effects of prior group-based disadvantages.
This game is played in two phases, but first, let's go over the Intergroup Monopoly rules. The banker is to distribute property and money as follows: Player One gets the normal amount of money plus all of the red properties and one orange property. Player Two gets half the money and all of the purple properties. Player Three gets half the money and gets one railroad of their choice. Player Four gets twice the amount of money plus the green property and one pink property.
Player One gets to play by normal Monopoly rules. Player Two can only move half the amount they roll, always rounded down on odd numbers. They can only buy property priced less than $150 and must pay double for all property. If they land in jail, they must roll doubles to get out or pay a $200 fine to the bank. They must always pay twice the amount to any player, fine, or property. Houses and hotels: they can only receive half the amount due from other players, the board, and the bank. If you cannot afford to pay fines, other players, or the board, you must go to jail.
Player Three must go directly to jail for rolling a number higher than seven. You can leave jail by rolling a number lower than seven. You can only buy property priced less than $100 and must pay double for all property. You must always pay twice the amount to any player, fine, or property. You can only receive half the amount due from other players, the board, and the bank. You can collect only half of the amount due from other players. If you cannot afford to pay the fines, other players, or the board, you must go to jail. You're allowed to raise the price of your railroad up to $500. For Player Two, the other players must pay the regular amount.
Finally, Player Four: Player Four is allowed to move twice the amount that they roll. They are required to buy a property they land on unless it's already owned. They receive twice the amount regularly awarded from Monopoly cards that collect $350 for passing Go. They can buy property for $25 that is less than the stated price. They can buy houses and hotels two for one. They have to pay twice the amount for taxes. They can sell their property at other players at any price they are willing to pay, and they can buy property from other players at any price they are willing to sell.
Now, Phase One is called Open Discrimination. In the first phase, students are randomly assigned to one of five positions: the banker and players one through four. The banker is essentially an observer, and Player One plays according to normal Monopoly rules. Player Two and Three are overtly disadvantaged, and Player Four is privileged relative to other players. For instance, Player Four receives $350 for passing Go, well above the standard $200, and is permitted to buy houses and hotels two for one. Player Two has rules such as, "You can only move half the amount you roll," and "You can only buy property priced less than $150." Likewise, Player Three has rules such as, "You will go directly to jail for rolling a number higher than seven." The main difference between Players Two and Three is that Player Three spends most of the time in jail. In order to make the game move quickly, players begin with some property already distributed. Ideally, students spend about fifteen to twenty minutes in the first stage of play, but this period can be modified to fit different class lengths. During this phase, Players Two and Three typically lose money rapidly and often become demoralized. If players lose all their money and property, the game does not end; instead, they go into debt, and the banker records their level of debt.
Phase Two: Equal Opportunity. In the second phase, which lasts five to ten minutes longer than the first phase, players are told that all forms of unequal treatment have now been ended. At this point, all players play by the normal Monopoly rules. The title "Equal-Opportunity" is somewhat ironic, however, because players quickly discover that their opportunities are far from equal. Even with the additional time spent under conditions of equality, formerly disadvantaged players continue to decline and struggle with debt. The point of the above exercise is to demonstrate how just magically changing some laws here and there doesn't equate to equality being achieved simultaneously.
In Phase One, players clearly had advantages over others, and those advantages led to an increase in wealth and prosperity at a rate much more substantial than the other players who received no advantage or even disadvantages. Their starting points were greatly disproportioned, which led to some thinking that their personal efforts led to their personal success, and if they could do it, why couldn't others? Phase One, which is supposed to represent changes in laws that directly discriminated against certain groups, this being women, the Black community, or other minority groups. Even some whites are included in this because they historically were not considered white when the Irish first immigrated to America. They were one step above Black people in status but were not considered white at all. They were treated as second-class citizens.
After playing in Phase Two, you realize that not even when things are legislated to provide unique equality, the ramifications of Phase One are so entrenched that it really doesn't matter beyond that. It's easy to argue changing the laws if you know your status isn't really going to be affected much, and you know that you will still be in the same social and economic status as before. You really, you really lose nothing by allowing it to happen. I wonder if these things directly affected their statuses, if they would have found a way to fight against it. This also doesn't address the years of social and cultural norms that law simply cannot change by just appearing. It will take generations to flush out these ideas to bring about a sense of true equality between human beings. Even today, we are still fighting the idea that Black people are lazy and ignorant, which justifies their social and economic status in our country.
Intergroup Monopoly demonstrates on a macro level why Fuhrman of acurate is still relevant even today. It also shows why adopting the argument that "I see no race, we are all human beings" doesn't address the fact that certain parts of our race are extremely disadvantaged by policies that separated them out based upon certain characteristics. It's a lazy defense tactic that is easy to accept if you wish, if you wish to do nothing about the current state of our nation's social and economic problems. Even then, if you see all people as human beings, you should want to help those based on the fact that they are human beings.
All in all, Monopoly can be a great device to teach certain economic principles. It is limited because it only deals with property and leaves out the entire service industry, but then again, services just trade one's labor for money, and money is not necessarily how you build wealth. Equality of opportunity is just a utopian concept that people wish we had. It would justify all the inequality in this country to being each individual's own actions while denying that free will doesn't exist and that chance plays a factor in our everyday lives.
Let's be honest, what is the real difference between the word chance and risk in the investment world? The word risk is used to make it seem like a more educated guess on matters entirely based upon chance. Would you trust a portfolio manager if they used measured risks to make a return, or if they used measured chance? Hopefully, you've gained some helpful insight from this video and it causes you to do some research on your own. And as always, thanks for the listen, and give me a like if you enjoyed this content. Make sure you subscribe and share my videos. Have a good one.